Below is a message which I recently tried to send, but was reported back as
rejected by the server.  If it actually made it through the first time,
please forgive the duplication.

I'm liable to repeat some things I said about deaccessioning policies the
last time the issue came up, so I apologize if some of this sounds familiar.
These are just my personal opinions.

While the sale of deaccessioned objects occasionally has gotten bad press and
has been sensationalized by news media, I think it is acceptable as long as
it does not become a frequent, routine practice.  Overindulgence in this
method would be tantamount to a museum appearing to be functioning as a
dealer.  For an art museum to accept as a gift a major work of art, wait for
it to appreciate in value, and then sell it off would be a highly
questionable act, for example.  When objects are sold the revenue should be
used for new acquisitions, never operating expenses.  And I would certainly
oppose the diversion of deaccessioning income to something like web site
development or outreach programs, which I would consider akin to putting the
cart before the horse.

That having been said, I admit that I once accepted as gifts items which
duplicated other items already in the collection, with an eye toward using
them later for trading purposes with collectors (our museum had never sold
anything at that time, but trades were permissible).  If such trades had
occurred, I would have recorded the new acquisitions as gifts in the names of
the donors of the original items, which would be an appropriate, ethical way
of acknowledging the continuing beneft of these gifts.  When I acquired gifts
earmarked for later trading, I made it clear in letters of agreement with the
donors that this was the intended ultimate disposition of the gifts.  While I
still think that this arrangement was reasonable in theory, I eventually
found that the scheme was of dubious value--the items which I selected were
not easily converted to more desirable acquisitions in actual practice, and I
concluded that it was more trouble than it was worth: we were left with too
many white elephants.

When it becomes desirable to deaccession objects which originally were
accepted in good faith as "keepers" I emphatically agree that they should not
be offered back to the original donors, partly because this compromises the
donor's relationship with IRS, if a tax deduction was taken--and one should
probably assume that this was the case.  Of course, each proposed deaccession
should be carefully considered on its own merits, and I would not dismiss out
of hand a donor request to have an item returned if the donor could make a
strong case (temporary insanity at the time of donation, errors regarding
ownership status, unacknowledged family or sentimental value, etc., etc.),
but a thorough examination of the issue would be required.  A simple change
of mind isn't good enough.

We have also had a situation in recent memory in which a corporate donor
claimed that the official who arranged a donation was not authorized to do so
and the corporation wanted the gift returned.  While we were operating in
good faith and could not be faulted, we had to consider the possibility that
an error had been made which needed to be rectified. I do not know what
decision was made.

However, I do not agree that the donor of an object proposed for deaccession
should "never" be contacted at all.  It seems to me that it's good public
relations to inform donors about deaccession proposals--not to encourage them
to reclaim their donations--but merely to inform.  I'm haunted by the
prospect of having to tell a proud donor that his gift is no longer in the
collection when he asks you to let his grandchildren see it.  A letter
indicating that a deaccession is being proposed, regardless of the type of
disposition, should be for information purposes only and should stipulate
that normally deaccessioned objects cannot be returned to donors.  No
herculean efforts need be made to contact elusive donors: if your letter is
returned marked "addressee unknown," you can at least demonstrate that you
made the effort to inform.

I realize that many or most museums would not elect to offer such deaccession
proposal notification and go this extra mile, but I think it is an option
which would demonstrate a museum's sense of continuing responsiblity to
donors, and it seems to me a simple enough gesture, which could be couched in
a carefully worded, tactful explanation which reiterates appreciation for the
original donation.  I know, I know, such notification could backfire, but I
think there is much to be said for being up front and open at the outset of a
deaccession procedure, as opposed to having to explain (or saddle your
sucessors with an unpleasant confrontation) after the fact.  (I also happen
to think that donors should be informed when their gifts are placed on
display, although I realize that in the case of large exhibitions comprising
objects from many donors, this could represent quite a chore.)

I feel that a museum which takes such a thoughtful and responsible approach
to deaccessions, regardless of disposition--donation to another institution,
sale, trade, or destruction--could garner public relations benefits so that
deaccession is not a dirty word.

David Haberstich

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).